A Section 164 CrPC statement alone cannot sustain conviction without substantive supporting evidence.

The informant, Lalan Jha, was employed as a security guard in Mumbai, while his wife, Punita Devi, lived in the village with their two minor children.

The prosecution alleged that on 18 May 2013, Punita Devi left home with the appellant, their neighbour, on the pretext of taking their younger son for medical treatment, but neither she nor the child returned.

The informant subsequently learnt that the appellant had taken them to Mumbai and lodged the criminal case.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the informant, the alleged victim, the Judicial Magistrate who proved the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), and the Investigating Officer.

Three witnesses were declared hostile, and the victim did not provide sufficient support to the prosecution case.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fines for each offence, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence before the High Court.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant abducted or compelled Punita Devi to accompany him, thereby committing an offence under Section 366 IPC.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed sexual assault or rape upon the victim, thereby attracting Section 376 IPC.

Whether the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., merely proved through the Judicial Magistrate, could independently establish the appellant’s guilt in the absence of reliable substantive testimony from the victim.

The Court applied Sections 366 and 376 IPC, requiring the prosecution to establish, respectively, the essential elements of kidnapping or abduction of a woman with the requisite intent and the commission of rape.

The Court reiterated the fundamental criminal-law principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that strong suspicion cannot substitute proof.

It further held that proof of a victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not, by itself, constitute substantive evidence sufficient to establish guilt; the prosecution must rely on substantive and reliable evidence proving the charge.

The Court found that the victim, who was the material witness regarding the alleged abduction and sexual assault, did not sufficiently support the prosecution case.

The evidence of the informant was also treated with caution because he was not present at the alleged occurrence and therefore required corroboration from reliable substantive evidence.

The hostility of three prosecution witnesses, the absence of consistent support from the victim, and the limited evidentiary value of merely proving the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement created reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish either the alleged abduction or the alleged sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt.

Extending the benefit of doubt, it set aside the judgment of conviction dated 26 July 2017 and the order of sentence dated 28 July 2017, acquitted the appellant of all charges, discharged him from the liabilities of his bail bond, and allowed the appeal.